I want to clarify the situation regarding "predicate infinitives", and make a suggestion. My understanding is that in original Eo, there was no such thing, so if you wanted to say "I want the cow to eat" you said mi volas ke la bovino manĝas and/or mi volas ke la bovino manĝu. A consequence of this circumstance was that the V2 word-order found in German and some other languages was reproducible in Eo, so for example if you wanted to say "I want to eat the cow" you could say mi volas manĝi la bovinon or mi volas la bovinon manĝi.

In the decades since Eo's launch, many users (possibly led by the Anglophones and the Francophones) have, through their usage, introduced into Eo predicate infinitives. Thus, the example phrase "I want the cow to eat" may be rendered mi volas la bovinon manĝi, directly copying the English. You can see that this is the same as the last example from the previous paragraph, so we've arrived at a situation where the free word-order of Eo is lessened, and the losers are the V2 guys. Hard cheese to them, eh?

A related part of Eo is adverbial participles. Putting the adverb ending on a participle creates the basis of a verb phrase that modifies the subject of the main phrase, so for example "Eating a banana, I watched my wife" becomes manĝante bananon, mi rigardis mian edzinon. This is a clever and useful form. Now then, it makes me wonder if we could introduce an accusative version, which would be an alternative to the newish predicate infinitives in many (but not all) cases. An example would be "I watched my wife eating a banana" as mi rigardis mian edzinon manĝanten bananon.

It looks weird to spertuloj, but is it logically flawed? Given that those "adverbs" aren't actually adverbs, I don't think it is.

Another question: can predicate-infinitive phrases replace adverbial-participle phrases? I'm guessing no, partly because we've already got the latter, and partly because predicates don't come straight after subjects anyway.

I know well that Eo is a finished product and a living language, and not a WIP, so the extreme likelihood of this idea being tossed down the well with all the others won't surprise me. What I want is for spertuloj to correct any mistakes in this post and to assess the idea fairly. And I'd be interested to hear if the Germans kaj aliaj appreciate my effort to let them use Eo a bit more easily.

Roberto12:In the decades since Eo's launch, many users (possibly led by the Anglophones and the Francophones) have, through their usage, introduced into Eo predicate infinitives. Thus, the example phrase "I want the cow to eat" may be rendered mi volas la bovinon manĝi

Uhm, maybe some people do that, but it's wrong. "Mi volas la bovinon manĝi" means the same as "Mi volas manĝi la bovinon".

"bovino" can't be the subject of "manĝi" because it is in the accusative case.

The only correct version that you mentioned was "mi volas ke la bovino manĝu" ("manĝas" would be wrong here; we are expressing a desire or wish that the cow eat; we are not making a definitive statement that the cow IS eating, or that it does generally eat, as the -as ending indicates)

So I would not say that Esperanto's flexible word order has been at all affected by English and German speakers.

Now then, it makes me wonder if we could introduce an accusative version, which would be an alternative to the newish predicate infinitives in many (but not all) cases. An example would be "I watched my wife eating a banana" as mi rigardis mian edzinon manĝanten bananon.

No, you couldn't do that, just as you can't do the *volas bovinon manĝi mentioned above. As I mentioned before, the previous form is only said by beginners who haven't yet learned how to say that sentence grammatically, and I would not say that it has entered the language.

Your sentence with the wife and the banana is confusing to me. Do you mean that you watch your wife while your wife is eating a banana? That would be "Mi vidis mian edzinon manĝantan bananon". That's current standard Esperanto grammar, no changes or innovations necessary. Perhaps you haven't encountered this form before because we don't use it very often. It leaves the meaning unclear, so most people prefer to maintain clarity and say "Mi vidis mian edzinon, kiu manĝis bananon". One principle of good Esperanto style is that although the languages offers us *many* options for expressing ourselves, sometimes we choose not to use them, in order to express ourselves without ambiguity, so that others understand us easily.

You can't use -en in this situation, at any rate, because that combination already has a fixed meaning, and we only put it on the end of a word indicating a place; it means in the direction of that place. hejmen = homeward. But it's a moot point since this grammar already exists with the -an form.

You can read about this topic on this page in PMEG

Another question: can predicate-infinitive phrases replace adverbial-participle phrases?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. We can use infinitives as predicates. "Naĝi estas amuze" (lit. to swim is fun, less literally "swimming is fun") is a perfectly good sentence, for example. "Fariĝi kuracisto estas mia revo" (lit. To become a doctor is my dream, less literally "Becoming a doctor is my dream") is also perfectly good grammar. But those have a very different meaning than the adverbial participles that you're referring to. "Fariĝante" doesn't mean "becoming"; it means "while becoming", so "Fariĝante kuracisto estas mia revo", that would mean "My dream is while becoming a doctor ..." [the listener is waiting for the end of the sentence], which doesn't make a lot of sense. But perhaps I have misunderstood you, and you can tell me what kind of construction you really meant.

Thanks for the good long reply, Erinja. I'm actually shocked by it, coz I'm 100% sure that in a similar thread several months ago, more than one regular poster on this forum told me that predicate infinitives were part of Esperanto. Your reply, plus the PMEG link, suggest that those people were wrong, and that the examples from the Tekstaro that they cited were dodgy.

Do you mean that you watch your wife while your wife is eating a banana? That would be "Mi vidis mian edzinon manĝantan bananon". That's current standard Esperanto grammar, no changes or innovations necessary. Perhaps you haven't encountered this form before because we don't use it very often. It leaves the meaning unclear, so most people prefer to maintain clarity and say "Mi vidis mian edzinon, kiu manĝis bananon".

This makes sense, but I worry about the fact that we've got a participle with accusatives on either side of it (edzinon manĝantan bananon). Regarding the example at the end, that kinda misses the fact it's the eating of the banana specifically that's being watched, and not just the wife who happens to be eating one.

Lastly, that question at the bottom just meant: can you swap an adverbed participle for an infinitive, and the answer is now obviously no.

Robert we have three possibilities in Esperanto.

Manĝante bananon, mi rigardis mian edzinon (you are eating the banana)

Mi rigardis mian edzinon manĝantan bananon (wife is eating banana while you are watching her, the banana eating characterizes the wife)

Mi rigardis mian edzinon manĝanta bananon (similar meaning to mi rigardis mian edzinon manĝi bananon.

If you want, you might try to drive a distinction between mi aŭdis lin venanta and mi aŭdis lin veni.

sudanglo:distinction between mi aŭdis lin venanta and mi aŭdis lin veni.

→ Kuri / kuranta / kurantan : alia diferenco inter participoj kaj ordinaraj adjektivoj

I agree with Erinaj that you can't say Mi volis lin veni - you have to say Mi volis ke li venu.

It's all bound to be in PMEG somewhere with a complete explanation. Afraid I'm too idle to link to references.

Roberto12:Thanks for the good long reply, Erinja. I'm actually shocked by it, coz I'm 100% sure that in a similar thread several months ago, more than one regular poster on this forum told me that predicate infinitives were part of Esperanto.

Predicate infinitives ARE part of Esperanto. That's those sentences like "Iri per trajno estas rapide" or "Resti en lito estas komforte"

The problem with the cow and eating sentence had nothing to do with the predicate infinitive; it had to do with the role of "bovino" in the sentence. Bovino couldn't be both subject and object.

This makes sense, but I worry about the fact that we've got a participle with accusatives on either side of it (edzinon manĝantan bananon). Regarding the example at the end, that kinda misses the fact it's the eating of the banana specifically that's being watched, and not just the wife who happens to be eating one.

The participle with accusatives on either side is confusing, which is why you will seldom see this form. We avoid using permissible forms in cases where they lead to confusion.

If it's the eating of the banana specifically that's being watched, then the English sentence "I see my wife eating a banana" is also ambiguous. Is it "I see my wife, who is eating a banana", or is it "I see the consumption of a banana by my wife"? You would have to re-word the sentence to make it clear in both English and Esperanto.

Thanks for the interesting link Dark Weasel.

At a quick glance through I am not sure I would agree with Miner, but I'll give it a careful study later, and post.

(1) Mi vidis la knabon kuri.

(2) Mi vidis la knabon kuranta.

(3) Mi vidis la knabon kurantan

If I understand Miner's article correctly, he wants to drive a wedge between (1) and the other two, but on the basis of not being able to see differences in meaning between usages like (2) and (3) in the Tekstaro wants to treat (2) and (3) as having the same meaning.

PMEG on the other hand considers (2) and (3) to have a different nuance and that tallies with my lingvosento.

I think it is reasonable to say that 'kuri' presents the act as a whole, whereas 'kuranta' presents the act as a process (which might not complete).

So mi vidis lin fumi cigaron could suggest that he finished the cigar, whilst mi vidis lin fumanta cigaron says nothing about what happened next, only that when you saw him he was smoking.

But there might be some sentences where there is no effective difference between type (1) and type (2) formulations (with verbs of perception).

However (in my view) type 3 sentences focus the attention on (characterize) the object in the sentence.

In a court case, the prosecution might wish to know if you actually saw the accused running to the station (was he running?). For that I would be happy with Ĉu vi vidis la defendanton kuranta al la stacidomo.

On the other hand a witness, might say mi rimarkis plurajn homojn kurantajn en tiu direkto which identifies a group of people by virtue of what they were doing and isn't so different from mi rimarkis plurajn homojn pluvmantele vestitajn (or mi rimarkis plurajn altajn homojn).

Hmm, interesting. My own feelings are that:

(1) is flawed because in the free-word-order regime, in a phrase of the form "subject + finite verb + object + infinitive", the infinitive is (by default) complementary to the finite verb, and the object is object to the infinitive. Whether or not the two verbal parts make sense together is neither here nor there.

(2) = "I saw the boy running", placing emphasis on both the boy and the running. Standard usage of a predicate participle.

(3) = "I saw the running boy", where the boy and the running are taken together. Standard adjectival usage of a participle.

If I wanted to say that the action was finished, I'd probably expand the phrase.